scifiguy wrote:What is the social atmosphere like in various biglaw firms?

I've sometimes heard it's virtually non-existent, due to the general busyness people are engaged in. ..But is it also hard, because biglaw work is physically isolating (having to do stuff alone much of the time) or b/c of any competitive attitudes?

And in cases where there is socializing, is it often about law and biglaw life itself? Or can you find lighter conversation in firms that's non-work related?

And is there ever any "fun" in biglaw firms the way that you might find at many Silicon Valley companies (where they have ping pong tables, video games, basketball courts, etc.) that help employees relax or go to think creatively?

This is a great question, but you're going about finding the answer in the wrong way. Go out into the real world and experience it for yourself. No book, forum, or conversation is going to be able to replace that.

Have some common sense, man. You aren't stupid. The way you act is either with sincere naivety, or to a detriment of your limited time here – because the level of trolling you would be associated with would be an embarrassing waste of your time.

Do associates have to "schmooze" their clients? When you are around clients, aside from doing work for them and being professional/nice/friendly, do you have to go out of your way to flatter, have long talks, and/or kiss up to them?

If so, to what degree and what is it like?

Note: I'm not so much as asking whether you should just be a sociable/likeable person, but more like if the "winners" and successful people in biglaw end up going beyond "normal" social friendliess and start to give like excessive flattery and things of that nature?

NYstate wrote:Scifi guy: don't ask follow ups please. This was a reward for not starting threads. I'm not interested in further discussion.

No problem. You always have good insights into biglaw and law school, etc.

I'll refrain from follow-ups about screamers with you.

But, can I follow-up with another question?:

Biglaw Co-Worker Competition

I've heard some describe biglaw as a law version of The Hunger Games or the show Survivor. Only one or two (if that) will make partner out of an incoming class (and you are judged against your peers). Every 6 months to a year you're up for review and people are let go all the time. Does this make for a ultra-competitive relationship between colleagues? Is it cutthroat?

NYstate wrote:Scifi guy: don't ask follow ups please. This was a reward for not starting threads. I'm not interested in further discussion.

No problem. You always have good insights into biglaw and law school, etc.

I'll refrain from follow-ups about screamers with you.

But, can I follow-up with another question?:

Biglaw Co-Worker Competition

I've heard some describe biglaw as a law version of The Hunger Games or the show Survivor. Only one or two (if that) will make partner out of an incoming class (and you are judged against your peers). Every 6 months to a year you're up for review and people are let go all the time. Does this make for a ultra-competitive relationship between colleagues? Is it cutthroat?

Do associates have to "schmooze" their clients? When you are around clients, aside from doing work for them and being professional/nice/friendly, do you have to go out of your way to flatter, have long talks, and/or kiss up to them?

If so, to what degree and what is it like?

Note: I'm not so much as asking whether you should just be a sociable/likeable person, but more like if the "winners" and successful people in biglaw end up going beyond "normal" social friendliess and start to give like excessive flattery and things of that nature?

Some peopl schmooze, some don't. Some clients respond well to being schmoozed, others are annoyed by it.

Keep in mind, people like working with people they like. What matters is having a rapport with the client, not the manner in which that rapport is established

Hi kaf - Not sure why you wrote that, because I thought I was merely asking a question related to legal work (w/o starting a separate thread soley devoted to that question/topic), which perhaps others may be interested in or having discussion about too.

I do not make mean-spirited comments towards others or post questionable pics, etc., which I have seen done on this site.

In regards to asking "naive" questions (just to refer back to your post earlier), I wrote in a post a few months back (in response to a semi-related comment) that this is an open/free forum where users are allowed to discuss anything they want (in compliance with TLS rules). I explained that probably about 99.999% of the thousands of posts/threads on this site deal with things that I have no interest in and will never read (as with most people I'm assuming). E.g. What laptop is best for law school?; How to become an ADA; Where should I live in X city?; Should I volunteer at a law office before LS?; Where can I find a school's LSAT policy?, etc. When I see a thread I'm not interested in, then I just skip it. But I am OK with people asking away any questions they want. That's what a forum is!

I agreed with a previous poster in that earlier thread, however, that I should try not to start so many threads and post my questions in existing/relevant threads, so as to not clog up space. I agreed that that was an issue for me in the past and promised that I would take that into consideration in the future (which I have now). I'm not sure if that was what you were concerned about? If so, rest assured that I'm cognizant of that issue and have changed my TLS behavior in that regard. But, as for asking questions that pique my curiosity, I'm not sure there is anything wrong with doing that as long as it complies with TLS rules. Is there some kind of other concern you guys have?

The only other thing I've heard people sometimes complain about is the repetitiveness of some questions that have been asnwered in-depth (sometimes a subjective term) before already on the site. I think that's a fair concern and recommending that users try to search the site first before posting a question is not a bad idea. I think it helps to also give a user some URLS to previously answered questions when doing so. I do try to keep the repetitiveness thing in mind (though maybe not enough?), so as to post unique questions/topics. But occassionally, I think there can be good reason to post a question that's been discussed before:

a.) Perhaps the question was not thoroughly discussed in past posts, but merely touched on at a surface level. b.) Perhaps the question was thoroughly discusssed in a past post, but only by one or two people and one is not sure whether there is authoritative consensus over an issue or to trust only those few opinions and would like more opinions or perspective. I think it's very wise to get many solid opinions about something before deciding on something important.

Proverbs 15:22: Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.

3. I highly recommend you get a biglaw externship or internship or summer job of some kind. You could not only learn first hand all these questions; you could keep a blog analyzing your experience and it could possibly be awesome. Just get your own biglaw job doing something and observe the people around you. You wont get the answers you seek any other way.

Hi kaf - Not sure why you wrote that, because I thought I was merely asking a question related to legal work (w/o starting a separate thread soley devoted to that question/topic), which perhaps others may be interested in or having discussion about too.

I do not make mean-spirited comments towards others or post questionable pics, etc., which I have seen done on this site.

In regards to asking "naive" questions (just to refer back to your post earlier), I wrote in a post a few months back (in response to a semi-related comment) that this is an open/free forum where users are allowed to discuss anything they want (in compliance with TLS rules). I explained that probably about 99.999% of the thousands of posts/threads on this site deal with things that I have no interest in and will never read (as with most people I'm assuming). E.g. What laptop is best for law school?; How to become an ADA; Where should I live in X city?; Should I volunteer at a law office before LS?; Where can I find a school's LSAT policy?, etc. When I see a thread I'm not interested in, then I just skip it. But I am OK with people asking away any questions they want. That's what a forum is!

I agreed with a previous poster in that earlier thread, however, that I should try not to start so many threads and post my questions in existing/relevant threads, so as to not clog up space. I agreed that that was an issue for me in the past and promised that I would take that into consideration in the future (which I have now). I'm not sure if that was what you were concerned about? If so, rest assured that I'm cognizant of that issue and have changed my TLS behavior in that regard. But, as for asking questions that pique my curiosity, I'm not sure there is anything wrong with doing that as long as it complies with TLS rules. Is there some kind of other concern you guys have?

The only other thing I've heard people sometimes complain about is the repetitiveness of some questions that have been asnwered in-depth (sometimes a subjective term) before already on the site. I think that's a fair concern and recommending that users try to search the site first before posting a question is not a bad idea. I think it helps to also give a user some URLS to previously answered questions when doing so. I do try to keep the repetitiveness thing in mind (though maybe not enough?), so as to post unique questions/topics. But occassionally, I think there can be good reason to post a question that's been discussed before:

a.) Perhaps the question was not thoroughly discussed in past posts, but merely touched on at a surface level. b.) Perhaps the question was thoroughly discusssed in a past post, but only by one or two people and one is not sure whether there is authoritative consensus over an issue or to trust only those few opinions and would like more opinions or perspective. I think it's very wise to get many solid opinions about something before deciding on something important.

Proverbs 15:22: Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.

3. I highly recommend you get a biglaw externship or internship or summer job of some kind. You could not only learn first hand all these questions; you could keep a blog analyzing your experience and it could possibly be awesome. Just get your own biglaw job doing something and observe the people around you. You wont get the answers you seek any other way.

3. I highly recommend you get a biglaw externship or internship or summer job of some kind. You could not only learn first hand all these questions; you could keep a blog analyzing your experience and it could possibly be awesome. Just get your own biglaw job doing something and observe the people around you. You wont get the answers you seek any other way.

lol. By throwing staplers at associates? ...Just playing, heh heh (even though NY's story was a real one). Couldn't resist that joke.

I know. I'm too childish! I really am sometimes. I'm going to work on that! My online persona is annoying to many and I can sometimes understand why. Let me reevaluate my behavior and I shall change what is necessary! I really am too childish sometimes.

I have to shower now and maybe I"ll be back tonight to finish my post up above.

Last edited by scifiguy on Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Hi kaf - Not sure why you wrote that, because I thought I was merely asking a question related to legal work (w/o starting a separate thread soley devoted to that question/topic), which perhaps others may be interested in or having discussion about too.

I do not make mean-spirited comments towards others or post questionable pics, etc., which I have seen done on this site.

In regards to asking "naive" questions (just to refer back to your post earlier), I wrote in a post a few months back (in response to a semi-related comment) that this is an open/free forum where users are allowed to discuss anything they want (in compliance with TLS rules). I explained that probably about 99.999% of the thousands of posts/threads on this site deal with things that I have no interest in and will never read (as with most people I'm assuming). E.g. What laptop is best for law school?; How to become an ADA; Where should I live in X city?; Should I volunteer at a law office before LS?; Where can I find a school's LSAT policy?, etc. When I see a thread I'm not interested in, then I just skip it. But I am OK with people asking away any questions they want. That's what a forum is!

I agreed with a previous poster in that earlier thread, however, that I should try not to start so many threads and post my questions in existing/relevant threads, so as to not clog up space. I agreed that that was an issue for me in the past and promised that I would take that into consideration in the future (which I have now). I'm not sure if that was what you were concerned about? If so, rest assured that I'm cognizant of that issue and have changed my TLS behavior in that regard. But, as for asking questions that pique my curiosity, I'm not sure there is anything wrong with doing that as long as it complies with TLS rules. Is there some kind of other concern you guys have?

The only other thing I've heard people sometimes complain about is the repetitiveness of some questions that have been asnwered in-depth (sometimes a subjective term) before already on the site. I think that's a fair concern and recommending that users try to search the site first before posting a question is not a bad idea. I think it helps to also give a user some URLS to previously answered questions when doing so. I do try to keep the repetitiveness thing in mind (though maybe not enough?), so as to post unique questions/topics. But occassionally, I think there can be good reason to post a question that's been discussed before:

a.) Perhaps the question was not thoroughly discussed in past posts, but merely touched on at a surface level. b.) Perhaps the question was thoroughly discusssed in a past post, but only by one or two people and one is not sure whether there is authoritative consensus over an issue or to trust only those few opinions and would like more opinions or perspective. I think it's very wise to get many solid opinions about something before deciding on something important.

Proverbs 15:22: Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.

3. I highly recommend you get a biglaw externship or internship or summer job of some kind. You could not only learn first hand all these questions; you could keep a blog analyzing your experience and it could possibly be awesome. Just get your own biglaw job doing something and observe the people around you. You wont get the answers you seek any other way.

lol. By throwing staplers at associates? ...Just playing, heh heh (even though NY's story was a real one). Couldn't resist that joke.

I know. I'm too childish! I really am sometimes. I'm going to work on that! My online persona is annoying to many and I can sometimes understand why. Let me reevaluate my behavior and I shall change what is necessary! I really am too childish sometimes.

I have to shower now and maybe I"ll be back tonight to finish my post up above.

That was one extreme example. Don't make me regret answering you anymore than I already do. At least you aren't starting new threads, so there is some improvement.

Biglaw is basically an office job with long hours. You are trying way to hard to understand a culture from the outside with no practical experience.